Disposed

Jansewa Griha Nirman Developers and Builders through Mr. Shailendra Banode v. Smt. Kalpana C. Chafale

Delhi HC28 Aug 2024CM(M)/157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner withdrew a writ petition challenging an NCDRC order, relying on a Supreme Court judgment held that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arises. The court granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawn with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Jansewa Griha Nirman Developers and Builders… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 28^th August, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 157/2024 & CM APPL. 4894/2024 & CM APPL. 9680/2024 JANSEWA GRIHA NIRMAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS THROUGH MR. SHAILENDRA BANODE

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit, Ms. Runjhun Garg, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SMT. KALPANA C. CHAFALE .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 04.05.2023 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) in Revision Petition No. 2037/2017.

¶12

Said Revision Petition was filed before NCDRC impugning order dated 18.06.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur, Maharashtra in Appeal No.2476/2005.

¶13

Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Maharashtra, relying upon judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter , Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024,

¶14

CM(M) 157/2024 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 16:22:00

¶16

learned counsel for petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶17

This Court has gone through said order wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have been invoked.

¶18

The situation is precisely the same here, too.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

¶20

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶21

AUGUST 28, 2024/ sw

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

CM(M) 157/2024 2

¶24

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 16:22:00

Jansewa Griha Nirman Developers and Builders through Mr. Shailendra Banode v. Smt. Kalpana C. Chafale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jansewa Griha Nirman Developers and Builders through Mr. Shailendra Banode v. Smt. Kalpana C. Chafale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Sai Construction & Anr. Vs Smt Vaishali Vinayak Parkhi & Anr.

Central Bank of India Vs Anuradha Manchanda and Ors.

Samarth Trading Company & Anr. Vs Thandi Ram Jai Narain

M/S Ajmer Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Jay Colour Company Vs M/S Surender Kumar Jain

Suresh Sethi Vs Raj Rani

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sakshi Abraham & Anr.

Sanjogta Chawla Vs Om Prakash Chawla

Ms Sai Construction & Anr. Vs Smt Vaishali Vinayak Parkhi & Anr.

Central Bank of India Vs Anuradha Manchanda and Ors.

Samarth Trading Company & Anr. Vs Thandi Ram Jai Narain

Praveen Kumar Vs Jyoti

Mohd Hanif Vs Jaideep Chaudhary

Lalit Kumar Vs Shri Ved Pal & Ors.